Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-04 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Terri Payne, Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and George Read, Community Development; and three other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 1. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2011- 029, Initiating the Vacation of a Portion of the 1911 H.B. Ford Road. George Kolb gave a brief overview of the item. The person who owns the property on both sides wants to set up irrigation equipment, so the road, which does not exist except on paper, needs to be vacated. There is no need for this road for access. UNGER: Move approval of the Resolution. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair vote yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 1 of 9 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Pages 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2011-008, Accepting the Engineer’s Report and Setting a Hearing Date regarding the Vacation of the 1911 H.B. Ford Road. Mr. Kolb said that a hearing is not necessary since it involves a single property, but because of its location and other factors, a hearing will be held anyway. It will delay the vacation somewhat. UNGER: Move approval of the Resolution. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair vote yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2011- 225, a License to Use the Right-of-Way of H.B. Ford Road for the Installation of Irrigation Facilities and Associated Crops. DEBONE: Move approval of the Resolution. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair vote yes. 4. Before the Board was Continuation of Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne said this section has to do with water resources. Commissioner Unger pointed out that the Deschutes Water Resources Board now includes Jefferson and Crook counties, and the cities including La Pine. Section 2.5.1 has to do with reviewing the benefits and costs of exempt wells. No one really knows how much the water tables are being impacted by wells. This was a public request. Commissioner Unger stated there are already State laws overseeing the use of exempt wells, and he does not see the point of adding costs. Commissioner DeBone felt it is unnecessary as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Pages Some members of the public want to list specific agencies even though they are listed in Chapter 1. The Planning Commission did not feel it was needed. Commissioner DeBone feels one is an action item and he is hesitant to put that in, and the others are vague. Commissioner Unger wants to skip all three; the other Commissioners agreed. Regarding cold springs, he does not think that protection of these areas from development impacts should be included due to it being a land use action. Commissioner DeBone said that it is not specific, so there could be a problem with this type of policy. Chair Baney noted that ‘development impacts’ is vague wording. Commissioner Unger is concerned about LUBA implications. It is good to inventory them, but delete the wording regarding development at this time. Ms. Payne said they could soften it by indicating they will consider this at the time. Chair Baney asked about the broad statement of protecting land via zeroscaping. Ms. Craghead said that it should just not obligate the County. Chair Baney would like to leave in the text but take out the policy. Ms. Craghead said that the rural residential areas in La Pine have water quality issues. She said that some people want it to look more rural, so they want fewer houses. The TDC program was meant to do that, especially if in the future someone wants to develop land. Commissioner Unger indicated 5.35 has to do with irrigation issues, but he is concerned that this could slow down the land use process. Ms. Pane said that the irrigation districts could be allowed a notice and comment period. It was decided that this could be reviewed at the time. Ms. Payne talked about specific language regarding ODF&W and water levels, and supporting new studies on the Deschutes River. Some people have asked if this would be sound and verifiable, which typically are debatable words. Commissioner Unger said he is sensitive to creating language that might invite litigation. Section 2.5.8 will be scratched. Ms. Craghead stated that there might be issues around water levels; for instance, Pelton/Round Butte Dam licensing and assisting fish in the rivers. Commissioner Unger noted that this only solves half the problem. There are issues with pollutants in the water and water temperature, too. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Pages Chair Baney said that there are already some restrictions in place; and there is a lot of talk about property rights in the text. Mr. Lelack stated that there is no description or discussion of the goals, as it is too broad. Commissioner Unger observed that the agencies don’t even know what these are. He does want to see the groups work together. After further discussion, this wording was scratched. Ms. Payne talked about wells and beneficial use of the water. This was a public request. Wells are not metered and the use is often not known, and there is a poor understanding of this and State law. There are limits on personal water wells already dictated by the State. This language is probably not necessary. Commissioner Unger said that Water Resources tells people how much land they can water, but not how many gallons. Chair Baney noted that if it is understood, it should not be legislated. After further discussion, this language was scratched. Ms. Payne talked about grading around the waterways. She talked with planners to find out who has grading processes and rules. Cities often do. Mr. Anderson said that a grading ordinance has come up a number of times over the years. This would occur in the pre-development phase. Cities have this, and it also includes tree removal, erosion issues, and so on. There have not been many instances where a grading ordinance has come up. There is a model grading ordinance put out by the ICC, but it would require a lot more investigation and study, and he does not have staff to understand the engineering concepts. It would add a review element, and a fee would be attached to make it self-sustainable. This could be pursued, but it should come back in a broad concept beyond just river impacts. Commissioner Unger said that sometimes people clear the land, remove the trees, and weeds and erosion occurs with unforeseen impacts. There should be a process developed for all of this. Ms. Craghead noted that legislation was proposed to require a grading process in each county, so this might come up at some point anyway. Commissioner Unger stated that this should not be in the water policy, as that is too narrow. Mr. Anderson said that it could be considered under the CDD work plan and tied to building permits, and not necessarily in the comprehensive plan. Commissioner DeBone noted that nature could change the river banks anyway. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Pages Mr. Payne stated they could word it, “Evaluate the benefits and costs of riverbank protection”. Ms. Craghead indicated that it may have to do with someone putting something up to protect the river bank that results in a bad impact, or grading too close to the river bank, etc. Commissioner Unger said that it will be there in State or Federal law, so the County should see what they do. The idea is important, but the wording is too vague. Ms. Payne said La Pine could be added to COCO. There has been a public request to change some language regarding south County sewer systems. Ms. Craghead stated that there has to be a finding, and it is not known or proven that it is the only option. It says “may”. It could be added to the existing language. Mr. Anderson stated that it could be a better solution but not the only one. Commissioners Unger and DeBone said they don’t want to be lead down a path and need to be open to other ideas, so this language will be deleted. Under 4.5.11, developing a regional comprehensive water management policy, Ms. Payne asked if this should be changed to coordinate plans. Ms. Craghead stated that doctrine applies whether or not it is in the text, so this should be eliminated. Commissioner Unger said that he supports leaving the text they show in #2. It is an issue because of the reintroduction of steelhead. Ms. Craghead said that it can say, “Cooperate with stakeholders”. There was consensus to leave this language in. Ms. Payne asked about 2.5.3, as needed per regulations. Ms. Craghead said that it depends on whether this is federal or state law. Incentives can be added. Ms. Payne stated that people will want to know what this would cost. Chair Baney said that this language is too vague. Commissioners DeBone and Unger stated that regulatory and/or incentive language is okay. Ms. Payne said that 2.5.6 may not be necessary, since irrigation companies have rules to follow. The consensus was that the Board likes what is already there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Pages Regarding language on riparian ecosystems, Ms. Payne said that some want it all removed, but the Planning Commission wants it left in. The Board said to leave the language in. Under incentives, coordination and education language, Ms. Craghead state that there are the same limitations as before. This may be required by regulations. The Board supported the Planning Commission’s decision. . Under 2.5.16, Ms. Payne said the question is, what is inappropriate runoff? Chair Baney asked if this is covered by federal regulations; and noted that ‘inappropriate’ is vague wording. Commissioner Unger said that it talks about roads that go into wetlands areas and street runoff. This needs to be addressed but the word “inappropriate” could be cut. Ms. Payne stated that the next section looks at water issues as part of development, and wants the County to “coordinate and explore”. Commissioner Unger said that one person wants it all gone, but the Planning Commission put it in. Commissioner DeBone noted that this could be a good placeholder for possible future work. It was decided that the wording would remain. Regarding 2.6.1 and 2 changes suggested by the public, they want more detail on who the expert agencies are. The Planning Commission wants stakeholders. Mr. Lelack said that 2.6.1, 2 and 3 together make it different and controversial. One is inventory and one is protection. Ms. Payne stated that inventory is part of Goal 5. Agencies ad recommendations but some were controversial. Saying that the County will look at them does not mean they will be adopted and enforced. The Planning Commission did not like 2.6.3. She tried to explain that this would mean a public process. Chair Baney said that 2.6.3 might be action for a work plan. Mr. Lelack stated that they have to ensure that Goal 5 wildlife inventories and protections are kept up to date through a public process. After further discussion, the group agreed with what is in the language already, under 2.6.1 and 2. Mr. Lelack asked if they want to keep 2.6.4, the agency report. Commissioner DeBone suggested dropping 2.6.3, update Goal 5 and leave the agency report in 2.6.2. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Pages Ms. Craghead said they could change 2.6.2 to updating wildlife inventory and habitat protection based on a public process and sources such as the 2009 interagency report. There was consensus. In regard to tax incentives, Chair Baney said this can’t be promised. Ms. Craghead stated that it could be more broadly worded. Consensus was to add this. Ms. Payne said that 2.6.11 is better written, but it does change policy and adds state as well as federal. Commissioner Unger stated that if something is federally threatened, there is not much the County can do about it. He would like to develop a local approach to solutions. Ms. Payne said that “species of concern” is a much longer list. Commissioner Unger stated that they could end up threatened or endangered. He likes what is proposed now. There could be a local plan, and the state or federal may not even have one developed yet. Consensus was to include the proposed adjustments. Ms. Payne asked about language regarding coordination with expert agencies. Ms. Craghead said it helps to show cooperation with other agencies, and does not hurt to leave the language in. In regarding to language about the importance of wildlife, someone wanted all references to the wildlife report removed, but it is elsewhere. This language will be kept. Chair Baney said that the portion talking about identifying private land sounds like Greenprint to her. Commissioner Unger would like to explore Greenprint language cooperatively but it should not be binding. Ms. Craghead said that they want to show what was involved in developing Greenprint. It was a long public process. Chair Baney noted that a lot of it was surveying the choir. She sees value and generally supports the idea, but is not supportive of the changes suggested. Due to time constraints, discussion of the comprehensive plan was continued to the afternoon work session. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Pages Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda, with a minor change to one of the minutes. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair vote yes. Consent Agenda Items 5. Approval of Minutes: ƒ Work Sessions of February 2, April 18, 20, 25 and 27 ƒ Business Meeting of April 27 ƒ Comprehensive Plan Hearings of March 31 and April 5 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $20,801.99. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair vote yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $415.87. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second.